Videodrome

Audience Reviews

View More

Brent 06/23/2022 A Cronenberg Masterpiece See more thiago S @Thiagostone Mar 19 Filme fraco, o roteiro é fraco, as cenas são fracas, a história é fraca, o elenco é fraco, e ninguém ajuda a melhorar o filme, os personagens são fracos, e o filme deveria ter cenas bem melhores e relevantes, para fazer o filme ser bom See more Jerod S @jeroduptown Feb 17 Videodrome's premise is that video (VHS, to be exact) is going to be the new way to control minds. It's weird as heck and doesn't really work. See more Nick T. @Waveycave Dec 26 In spite of James Wood; a great movie. See more Ryan P @RT25602761 Nov 16 Videodrome is a horror/Sci-fi movie first screened in 1983 and was directed by David Cronenberg. Now if the name "Cronenberg" rings any bells, you’ll remember it’s a term often used for body-like types of horror. The term originates from this film and was impactful enough to make the name "Cronenberg" a term for human body horror. But let’s put aside Cronenberg’s impact on the entertainment industry for a moment and observe more in depth of the film that bought itself its own term. The beginning of the film happens to be slightly disturbing, as its main character is centered around the adult entertainment industry in the 1980s. As the plot continues to unfold, it slowly and dramatically transitions away from a story we were expecting to a new and horrifying one. It’s not just a film with visual horrors behind the screens but one with a mystery to unfold that made watching the movie interesting as a whole. However, it drops off somewhere in the middle and towards the high point of the film. The plot was still rich but it was surprisingly boring around that particular time period. Of course, it could be the lack of horror visuals in the middle but it was mostly the execution of the plot or events that led up to the conclusion. In addition, it also gets complex without much of an explanation, which gives a different impression of the film rather than being horrified. Some of the people I reviewed it with at the time, mentioned they were frustrated/confused from their interpretations of the film. In terms of recommendations, Videodrome is a must-watch for any horror genre enthusiast. While the film is not completely perfect, they can brush it aside for the film's specialties in its visual effects. If it does intend to be in your watch list, it’s best to have an open mind to the film and have your own interpretations. It’ll not only make the movie less complex but you can reflect on it with a newer perspective today than what most critics saw back then, such as our attachments to digital screens. Horrifying, right? See more Allan C @RT15713161 Nov 12 Arguably the greatest Body Horror film of all-time Videodrome (1983) ***** As part of a local art house retrospective on writer/director David Cronenberg (THE FLY, DEAD RINGERS, SCANNERS, THE BROOD, etc), I got the opportunity to rewatch VIDEODROME, but this time on the big screen for the first time, and it did not disappoint! If you’ve never seen the movie, it’s weird by even Cronenberg's standards. James Woods plays the owner of a UHF station that specializes in showing stuff the regular channels won’t show, meaning edgy sex and violence. When one of his techs picks up a satellite feed of a channel that’s broadcasting essentially a snuff film from one location, showing victims bound and tortured, Woods becomes obsessed with the broadcast, leading him down a rabbit hole where he no longer knows what is real and what’s in his imagination. The story is a lot more than that, but to share more would lead to spoilers. VIDEODROME is incredibly prescient when it comes to today’s media landscape, whether it’s getting your information from niche news sources, to social media, to who knows where else, viewers begin to lose perspective of reality, no longer able to discern what’s truth and what is fiction. However, I think that theme may be secondary to Cronenberg’s continuing obsession with the connection between sex and violence. Besides his view of the two inexorably being linked, there’s an exploration in asking the question, what would happen if the hysterical media critics' warning that if audiences are continually exposed to graphic sex and violence, it will lead to a societal downfall? I think that was Cronenberg’s primary focus, but it was the blurring of truth and fiction that really stood out for me on this viewing. VIDEODROME was Cronenberg’s first film to have real stars, which, besides Woods, also features a super cool Debbie Harry of Blondie fame as his girlfriend who finds herself attracted to the disturbing satellite feed even more than Woods. Overall, like most Cronenberg films, it is graphic, pushes boundaries, and is absolutely not for all audiences, but if you enjoyed some of his other films, this one is essential viewing and is arguably his best (though I think it’s THE FLY). Below is my review from the last time I watched it. 5-14-22 Videodrome (1983) ****1/2 I remember my mind being blown by this film the first time I saw it. It's amazing rewatching the film now, how many other films have imitated it in style, story, and themes. This was a film really ahead of its time. David Cronenberg was pretty much just thought of as a cult director at this time, but I feel this film really crossed him over from being a clever and thoughtful genre filmmaker to more of the arthouse director he'd become.  AI CAPSULE REVIEW: David Cronenberg’s Videodrome (1983) remains one of the greatest body horror films ever made—disturbing, prescient, and visionary. Starring James Woods and Debbie Harry, it explores the blurring of reality, media obsession, and the fusion of sex and violence with unsettling intensity. Rewatching it on the big screen confirms its influence and brilliance—it’s essential viewing for any Cronenberg fan. See more Read all reviews

Videodrome

My Rating

Read More Read Less WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW POST RATING